> Crypto is just software. There's no need to deploy infrastructure. Bitcoin is old enough to be in high school. Soon it'll be old enough to be in college. At some point we have to accept that it's not fit for purpose, do we not? It can't just be BBS-ing forever.
This argument relies on the assumption that Bitcoin's age is a proper marker for the entire industry, whereas most of its development only finally kicked off during the ICO mania.
It also relies on the assumption that Bitcoin's decisions reflect the entire industry's decisions, which by proof of contradiction (via anti-BCH-BTCers), does not exist: Many parts of the system are off doing their own part of the whole.
> Compare other things that came out in 2007/8. The iPhone and Android, for instance. In spite of actually needing to build and deploy both hardware and software, everyone on earth has one. Billions and billions deployed.
Apple is a centralized company that can dictate what its products will look like & can standardize their product evolutions to take future developments into account via executive/managerial leadership. Even if all of the decisions were made by the designers/devs, no one from outside the company can have a say about the hardware parts of the product, with only a relatively small part of the software side being accessible to 3rd party developers: Said developers can't access the core internals of iOS without working for Apple.
In contrast, BTC started out with relatively little leadership: While Satoshi was part of Bitcoin's early development, his control over the network was still contingent on other participants within the same network agreeing to the changes -- Disagreements are where the Bitcoin block size wars & subsequent forks emerged. At any time, a developer can modify the core parts of the codebase without restrictions, with the main limiting factor being getting other people to use that modified code instead.
IMO, are more apt comparison would be to compare it with other protocols like Bittorrent and IPFS, whose development nature is not fully controlled by a select group of people, and where everyone can modify the internals of the software to their desires. Similar to Bitcoin, however, adoption of the modified software is dependent on the modifier convincing others to use their code instead.
There you go. Hence, the parent comment has falsified their own sentence, by making a false comparison (iPhone, Android) in the first place and by making a sweeping generalization of the whole crypto industry, just because the first one is useless. So the whole argument in their sentence is invalid.
A better comparison would be on the protocol level like Bittorrent, IPFS, etc.
This argument relies on the assumption that Bitcoin's age is a proper marker for the entire industry, whereas most of its development only finally kicked off during the ICO mania.
It also relies on the assumption that Bitcoin's decisions reflect the entire industry's decisions, which by proof of contradiction (via anti-BCH-BTCers), does not exist: Many parts of the system are off doing their own part of the whole.
> Compare other things that came out in 2007/8. The iPhone and Android, for instance. In spite of actually needing to build and deploy both hardware and software, everyone on earth has one. Billions and billions deployed.
Apple is a centralized company that can dictate what its products will look like & can standardize their product evolutions to take future developments into account via executive/managerial leadership. Even if all of the decisions were made by the designers/devs, no one from outside the company can have a say about the hardware parts of the product, with only a relatively small part of the software side being accessible to 3rd party developers: Said developers can't access the core internals of iOS without working for Apple.
In contrast, BTC started out with relatively little leadership: While Satoshi was part of Bitcoin's early development, his control over the network was still contingent on other participants within the same network agreeing to the changes -- Disagreements are where the Bitcoin block size wars & subsequent forks emerged. At any time, a developer can modify the core parts of the codebase without restrictions, with the main limiting factor being getting other people to use that modified code instead.
IMO, are more apt comparison would be to compare it with other protocols like Bittorrent and IPFS, whose development nature is not fully controlled by a select group of people, and where everyone can modify the internals of the software to their desires. Similar to Bitcoin, however, adoption of the modified software is dependent on the modifier convincing others to use their code instead.